SUDALAIMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Tuticorin, made in S.C.No.80 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded five years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence under Sec.449 IPC and life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Antonyammal. They were living at Arunthathiyar Street, Main Road, Mukkani. The younger sister of Antonyammal was living in the same area lonely as her husband died a few years ago. The son and daughters of the said Antonyammal were all married and living somewhere else. The families were under misunderstanding on the ground that the son of Antonyammal had an affair with the sister of the accused. A few days prior to the date of occurrence, a sum of Rs.500/- was missing from the house of Antonyammal, and she also suspected the sister of the accused in that regard. She was go on sarcastically making remarks whenever she was taking water from the public tap. Aggrieved over the same, on 29.8.2007 at about 2.30 P.M., when the deceased was in her house by sitting on the cot, the accused went inside with an aruval and cut her on the neck. The same was witnessed by P.W.1. When P.W.1 raised a distressing cry, he fled away from the place of occurrence. (b) Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station where P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police was present, to whom he gave a complaint Ex.P1, at about 3.30 P.M. on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.251 of 2007 under Sections 450 and 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P14, was despatched to the Court. (c) P.W.12, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P15. Then the inquest was conducted on the dead body of Antonyammal in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars, and Ex.P16 is the inquest report. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of autopsy. (d) P.W.8, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Tuticorin Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Antonyammal and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to the heavy cut injury on the neck, and the death would have occurred about 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. (e) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 31.7.2007 at about 3.30 P.M., when he came forward to give a confessional statement. The admissible part of the same is marked as Ex.P4 pursuant to which he produced M.O.1, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then he was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and also the weapon of crime, M.O.1, aruval, which was recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement, were sent for analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department. Accordingly, they were subjected to, which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P12, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P13, the serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.

(3.) The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 12 witnesses and also relied on 17 exhibits and 7 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found him guilty and awarded life imprisonment as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.